Holmes et al v. Fresenius Kidney Care of Tuskegee et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that the Dfts' 30 motion forreconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 6/7/2021. (bes, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
STEVEN HOLMES and
FRESENIUS KIDNEY CARE
OF TUSKEGEE, et al.,
) CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:20-cv-853-ECM
MEMORANDOM OPINION AND ORDER
Now pending before the Court is the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion to remand, (doc. 30).
Motions for reconsideration are extraordinary remedies and therefore should be
used sparingly. Cobra Int'l, Inc. v. BCNY Int'l, Inc., 2016 WL 7486722, at *1 (S.D. Fla.
Aug. 12, 2016). Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) states “any order or other decision, however
designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims . . . may be revised at any time before
the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.”
This has been understood to give the district court “plenary power” over its interlocutory
orders. Barnes v. S. Elec. Corp. of Mississippi, 2020 WL 5503641, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Sept.
11, 2020) (citing Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000)).
Therefore, at its discretion, a court can modify or vacate non-final orders at any point before
final judgment. Spellman v. Haley, 2004 WL 866837, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 22, 2002)
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). Because Rule 54(b) provides an avenue to challenge the
finality of a court’s orders, reconsideration “is appropriate only in very limited
circumstances . . . .” Cobra Int'l, Inc., 2016 WL 7486722, at *1.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) does not specify grounds for considering a motion for
reconsideration of non-final orders. Instead, courts grant motions for reconsideration upon
a showing of good cause. McGuire v. Murphy, 285 F. Supp. 3d 1272, 1278 (M.D. Ala.
2018); see also Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023–24 (11th Cir.2000). Like
circumstances justifying relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60, in the past, courts have
recognized an intervening change in controlling law, the need to correct clear error,
preventing manifest injustice, or ensuring the efficient deposition of the case as appropriate
reasons for a court to modify its non-final orders. Id. Motions for reconsideration may not
present “new legal theories or raise legal arguments that could have been raised
previously.” In re Employment Discrimination Litig. Against State of Alabama, 2006 WL
2841081, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 2, 2006). The movant must do more than simply restate
his or her previous arguments, and any arguments the movant failed to raise in the earlier
motion will be deemed waived. See McCoy v. Macon Water Authority, 966 F. Supp. 1209,
The Defendants’ motion fails to address the proper standard for the motion for
reconsideration or the way in which they have met this burden. And as the Court noted in
its order on the motion to remand, neither party provided any briefing—meaningful or
otherwise—on the issue of the amount in controversy. This failure notwithstanding, the
Court addressed the jurisdictional issue of the amount in controversy in its order. While
the Court was and is aware of the contents of the proposed amended complaint, neither
party addressed the extent to which the Court can consider factual allegations contained in
a post-removal proposed amended complaint, the filing of which the Court ultimately
disallowed. In the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, while they reference factual
allegations in the proposed amended complaint, they persist in their failure to fully address
how such a proposed amended complaint factors into the Court’s determination of the
amount in controversy at the time of removal. The Defendants do not point to any clear
error, manifest injustice, or any appropriate reason for this Court to modify its order.
In any event upon its order on the motion to remand, the Court was divested of
jurisdiction, and the Defendants identify no reason why the Court should vacate its
previous order and grant its motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, upon consideration
of the motion and for good cause, it is ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for
reconsideration, (doc. 30), is DENIED.
DONE this 7th day of June, 2021.
/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?